I glossed over the article, and saved it to read properly when I am able to. Some of these accusations I'm aware of, and won’t mind digging a bit deeper on.

The only comment I feel I can make, which is a bit off in a tangent, is that it only took 22 billions dollars, current value, to invite nuclear weapons.
We have plenty of corporations today with disposable profits that could easily match that today, even individuals – I would think dozens of organizations, and governments would be able to invite incredibly new (and possibly devastating) technologies that would reshape the entire world in a short period. I just find it odd.

(25-11-2012 07:01 PM)Dark Light Wrote: I came across a pretty good article that covers a list of thirty-three conspiracies that were nuts, but nevertheless happened, or so the article claims. Do you agree? Which conspiracies would you discount? http://www.riseearth.com/2012/09/33-cons....html#more

*Caution*
Long Read

How was the Manhattan Project a conspiracy theory?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(25-11-2012 07:01 PM)Dark Light Wrote: I came across a pretty good article that covers a list of thirty-three conspiracies that were nuts, but nevertheless happened, or so the article claims. Do you agree? Which conspiracies would you discount? http://www.riseearth.com/2012/09/33-cons....html#more

*Caution*
Long Read

How was the Manhattan Project a conspiracy theory?

I thought that the authors definition of conspiracy was a little on the broad side as well. Certainly there were scientists, most prominently Einstein and the other Nazi scientists who conspired to create a devastating weapon, but I wouldn't fit it into the category of conspiracy theories either. It could also be said that Samuel Colt conspired to create devastating weapons...

(25-11-2012 07:01 PM)Dark Light Wrote: I came across a pretty good article that covers a list of thirty-three conspiracies that were nuts, but nevertheless happened, or so the article claims. Do you agree? Which conspiracies would you discount? http://www.riseearth.com/2012/09/33-cons....html#more

*Caution*
Long Read

How was the Manhattan Project a conspiracy theory?

I'd agree on that point. The article, as I understood it, settled on the definition of conspiracy as 'a governmental secret agreement to do wrongful things'. To be a theory there needs to be a public accusation.
As the article stated, no one outside the agreement made any accusations.

There are people on this planet that hold wealth and power that none of us can imagine or emapthise with.

The truth is nobody knows.... none of us ever will.... however it boosts our ego and our mode of reality to call something "ridiculous" because it doesnt fall into our little bubble of life experience.

(Something that I am of course guilty of as well)

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

I had heard about "Operation Northwoods" for years. So...when I learned that this was a seriously-proposed operation (by the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff) and not some wild-arsed conspiracy theory, then I damned-near had a heart attack. If President Kennedy would have hung the Joint Chiefs by their balls for even proposing such a thing - which he should have done - then we could dismiss most conspiracy theories pretty easy today. Also, our government would have been less apt to indulge in such BS in the future. Instead, Kennedy just ignored the proposal and two years later we get the Gulf Of Tonkin Conspiracy in 1964 which propelled us into the Vietnam War where shitloads of people died needlessly - they died for a lie.